131
131
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 131
favorite 0
quote 0
what is interesting, there is a big human cry on the cost of this program. back in 1980 -- i know that is a long time ago -- but back in 1980 the cost had grown to about $4.50 billion in current terms and half a million people were going through the program. that was a different time in this economy. that is when the steel, textiles, and auto industries were hit very hard. there have been a lot of reforms since then -- 1981, 2002, and again in 2009, that has really tightened the program. we are down to about 200,000 people, through the program right now at a cost of about a billion dollars. the program really has been reduced over time and has been really tightened to make sure that the program results and real adjustment and not just some compensation to workers who are losing their jobs. >host: according to the labor department, the eligibility requirements to get the trade adjustment act -- all requirements must be met. hours and wages reduced to 80% or less of weekly average. workers have been totally or partially laid off. sales or production have decli
what is interesting, there is a big human cry on the cost of this program. back in 1980 -- i know that is a long time ago -- but back in 1980 the cost had grown to about $4.50 billion in current terms and half a million people were going through the program. that was a different time in this economy. that is when the steel, textiles, and auto industries were hit very hard. there have been a lot of reforms since then -- 1981, 2002, and again in 2009, that has really tightened the program. we are...
122
122
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 122
favorite 0
quote 1
because people look at them for some big boats, big on health care reform or some other big matters, on what to do about epa regulation over osha regulations, what to do about offshore drilling. a lot of this stuff comes and go so quickly that they don't hear the other side, they don't feel pressure from the other side. and they do have to raise money, and they live within this system where every day they are going out, doing fundraisers, lobbyists are at the fundraisers giving them money. these are the people they talk to, they listen to. it's almost an and ecological problem as much as one of laws and legal decisions. so it's really, the key take away here is for anything to change for there to be a constitutional amendment, any laws passed or even a cultural shift that will cause of candidates to be less able to take money. there has to be a shift in outlook sentiment. you have to be -- you can't stop it all. it has to be kind of shameful. if an umpire left a baseball game and then there was a story the next day saying that they had taken money from one side, from one set of playe
because people look at them for some big boats, big on health care reform or some other big matters, on what to do about epa regulation over osha regulations, what to do about offshore drilling. a lot of this stuff comes and go so quickly that they don't hear the other side, they don't feel pressure from the other side. and they do have to raise money, and they live within this system where every day they are going out, doing fundraisers, lobbyists are at the fundraisers giving them money....
72
72
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 72
favorite 0
quote 0
i'm a big supporter of biofuels. but one of the things that's become clear is, is that we need to accelerate our basic research in ethanol and other biofuels that are made from things like woodchips and algae as opposed to just focusing on corn, which is probably the least efficient energy producer of these various other approaches. and so i think that it's important for even those folks in farm states who traditionally have been strong supporters of ethanol to examine are we, in fact, going after the cutting-edge biodiesel and ethanol approaches that allow, for example, brazil to run about a third of its transportation system on biofuels. now, they get it from sugar cane and it's a more efficient conversion process than corn-based ethanol. and so us doing more basic research in finding better ways to do the same concept i think is the right way to go. q i believe you addressed this next one, so we're going to skip past it. the president: i did. q but from ryan: "i would cut defense spending." q and james: "i'd cut c
i'm a big supporter of biofuels. but one of the things that's become clear is, is that we need to accelerate our basic research in ethanol and other biofuels that are made from things like woodchips and algae as opposed to just focusing on corn, which is probably the least efficient energy producer of these various other approaches. and so i think that it's important for even those folks in farm states who traditionally have been strong supporters of ethanol to examine are we, in fact, going...
191
191
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 191
favorite 0
quote 0
one is to look back in history when we've had big problems and sotions. came up with big solutions. the 1980's are a particular timg i was in the state legislaturein then and it was happening in yed washington. when i was 39 years old in 1983 ronald reagan and tip o'neill had a meeting at the whiteal house. i wasn't there but allegedly ith went something like this. the president said social security's going broke in about 20 years we just got a report. .e need to fix it. agree o'neill said i agree.to wor i'm going to work on it but i'm wi not willing llto raise the tax d o'neill said i'm willing to to k work, but i don't want to cut the benefit.ooked at the the actuary and said what we dos you push the eligibility out and get the system back in the actuarial soundness. 1 i was 39 in 1983. i would have been collecting age social security at 65 in 2010gan yut because reagan and o'nealhe got to get ready pushed mye y eligibility out by one year to age 66, 65 and now incrementally goes up two years to 67 in a few years. that's the system and actuarial7 soundness for 67 years.dden i agai
one is to look back in history when we've had big problems and sotions. came up with big solutions. the 1980's are a particular timg i was in the state legislaturein then and it was happening in yed washington. when i was 39 years old in 1983 ronald reagan and tip o'neill had a meeting at the whiteal house. i wasn't there but allegedly ith went something like this. the president said social security's going broke in about 20 years we just got a report. .e need to fix it. agree o'neill said i...
274
274
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 274
favorite 0
quote 0
big entitlement programs. st too is on and on this americy sustainable path. the average american pays about $110,000 into medicare over his or her life time. but on average, the average american was used to benefit mec over $300,000 undramatic care. there again, it is not tough. in that is unsustainable with the n average american pays $110,000 receives the benefit of theentlt $300,000.am. ycial security, and other huges entitlement program.s this year it's taking in less than its spending on current retirees. that did reckoning was going to be several years down the road. it has been accelerated. h it is here and it tears now,n right now. social security is taking in an giving tax revenue less than it's getting and paying out benefits to retirees. and so what does this mean thath been up and up so we have mores new debt under thisebt administration, more new debt ci under president, then the debt compiled under all of theed previous presidents combined rgth george bush to the nest geo george -- the latest ge
big entitlement programs. st too is on and on this americy sustainable path. the average american pays about $110,000 into medicare over his or her life time. but on average, the average american was used to benefit mec over $300,000 undramatic care. there again, it is not tough. in that is unsustainable with the n average american pays $110,000 receives the benefit of theentlt $300,000.am. ycial security, and other huges entitlement program.s this year it's taking in less than its spending on...
28
28
tv
eye 28
favorite 0
quote 0
and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture the debt deadline draws closer and closer yet republicans are stepping farther and farther away from the negotiating table the republican party actually forced the united states into default just to protect their billionaire billionaire buddies are well more moderate voices in the party and as much as the republicans would like to argue how corporate taxes are destroying our economy truth be told there are not the truth about corporate taxes will be revealed in rides alone liberal rubble. you need to know this another day another step closer to default and enough another debt limit negotiations set for this week and every state yesterday president obama squashed the idea of a short term debt limit increase killing republican hopes to kick the can down the road and going to election year on republicans would have even more leverage and then called for another meeting later this week with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to reach a long term debt limit deal a deal president obama is pushing for includes closing tax
and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture the debt deadline draws closer and closer yet republicans are stepping farther and farther away from the negotiating table the republican party actually forced the united states into default just to protect their billionaire billionaire buddies are well more moderate voices in the party and as much as the republicans would like to argue how corporate taxes are destroying our economy truth be told there are not the truth about corporate...
149
149
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 149
favorite 0
quote 0
you see the big one and go for it. this would reduce the funds that we are giving to the afghanistan security forces by $4 billion. they still have 2/3 and reduce it by $4 billion and return those funds to help the deficit. the $12.8 billion allocated to this fund is equivalent to the g.d.p. of afghanistan. they are at $$16 billion. let's understand this, we are giving the afghanistan people their entire g.d.p. and borrowing it from china and other places. this makes no sense. and we need to go after the big whale. six times the total annual revenue of the afghan government is what we are giving them. i understand these funds are used to provide assistance to the security forces of afghanistan and providing training and equipment supplies. i have seen soldiers killed over there. my constituents that were killed by afghanistan soldiers that we trained. we don't know which ones are taliban and we are training them and giving them weapons. roughly $6 billion of the $12.8 billion is for salaries and benefits. in light of t
you see the big one and go for it. this would reduce the funds that we are giving to the afghanistan security forces by $4 billion. they still have 2/3 and reduce it by $4 billion and return those funds to help the deficit. the $12.8 billion allocated to this fund is equivalent to the g.d.p. of afghanistan. they are at $$16 billion. let's understand this, we are giving the afghanistan people their entire g.d.p. and borrowing it from china and other places. this makes no sense. and we need to go...
75
75
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 75
favorite 0
quote 0
but we can take a big step in the right direction. that's really what our country men and women want us to do. i'm glad that i got to hear part of the senators speech. i'm glad i have a chance to commend him for this leadership on the vexing and important problem that we need to deal with. >> i thank the senator. i yield the floor. >> u.s. senate today voted to continue moving forward with a nonbinding measure saying those earning more than $1 million should contribute more to federal debt reduction. they passed the motion to limit the debate, 74-22. after the vote, senate democratic leader harry reid announced no more votes in the senate. arizona republican said the senate gave up a week long 4th of july recess to work on debt ceiling and isn't accomplishing anything. we begin with kay hutchinson who opposes any tax relief. >> senate hutchinson, i was wondering the view that we've been terribly over worked this week. i understand that we canceled our 4th of july recess in order to get back here and get to work and do the people's bus
but we can take a big step in the right direction. that's really what our country men and women want us to do. i'm glad that i got to hear part of the senators speech. i'm glad i have a chance to commend him for this leadership on the vexing and important problem that we need to deal with. >> i thank the senator. i yield the floor. >> u.s. senate today voted to continue moving forward with a nonbinding measure saying those earning more than $1 million should contribute more to...
71
71
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 71
favorite 0
quote 0
nations, saying that this horrific act would take place against the people of libya, is just i think a big mistake. and it would undermine u.s. foreign policy that's been consistent since 1949 when nato was established. so i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: no further speakers. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. sherman: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of my amendment which is at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. at the end of the bill before the short title add the following, section, none of the funds made available by thi
nations, saying that this horrific act would take place against the people of libya, is just i think a big mistake. and it would undermine u.s. foreign policy that's been consistent since 1949 when nato was established. so i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: no further speakers. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye....
66
66
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 66
favorite 0
quote 0
of course they'd be in big trouble. and the senate is not in trouble but the country is in trouble because the senate is not doing its job and neither the house nor the senate did its job in the last congress for the first time ever and that's how we go into three years since we had a work document that we should have to work with. and what do we do this week? the disappointment to all three of us is we said we wanted to stay this week and deal with these issues. we started out trying to deal with the libya resolution which apparently wasn't important enough to deal with last thursday when we were going to take a week to work in our states. and then when people on the republican side said we really think we ought to be debating the reason we were supposed to stay, we still don't do that. we have this amendment -- i think it was supposed to be and is a sense of the senate that millionaires aren't paying enough taxes. now, we all understand -- we all understand the politics of that, just like we understand the politics of
of course they'd be in big trouble. and the senate is not in trouble but the country is in trouble because the senate is not doing its job and neither the house nor the senate did its job in the last congress for the first time ever and that's how we go into three years since we had a work document that we should have to work with. and what do we do this week? the disappointment to all three of us is we said we wanted to stay this week and deal with these issues. we started out trying to deal...
96
96
Jul 7, 2011
07/11
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 96
favorite 0
quote 0
but what's the big difference? the big difference is it takes being a very wealthy individual or a very big corporation to be able to take advantage of those tricks, to be able to hire a lobbyist who can build that trick into the tax code and to have the revenues and the resources to be able to maneuver through the tax code that way. ordinary americans don't do that. you can ask pretty much anybody in rhode island, show them the thousands of pages of the internal revenue code and ask them who's got a special provision in it for you. nobody does. they're regular americans. they pay regular taxes. they do things the way they're supposed to be done. the gimmicks and the tricks are all at the upper end. and it's time to clean house action particularly now when we so badly need the revenues to balance our budget. mr. president, it is inexcusable that our taxpayers allows billionaires to pay less taxes than truck drivers. even if we had no budget deficits, just being fair, just honoring the principle of equality would de
but what's the big difference? the big difference is it takes being a very wealthy individual or a very big corporation to be able to take advantage of those tricks, to be able to hire a lobbyist who can build that trick into the tax code and to have the revenues and the resources to be able to maneuver through the tax code that way. ordinary americans don't do that. you can ask pretty much anybody in rhode island, show them the thousands of pages of the internal revenue code and ask them who's...